Niels Peter Lemche npl at teol.ku.dk
Thu Dec 30 03:33:09 EST 1999

Well, at least you have to produce a better argument than saying that
scholarship has not produced adequate answers. No, but it has produced
answers and delineated the borderlines of the discussion. I did not leave
out here harrison's introduction--although I personally will not waste much
time on it--instead I referred to a brand new conservative overview of the
field, so I think I was fair. I would ask people--the intellegent amateurs
(and that is OK) on the list to become acquainted with an overview of that
kind. It will make the discussion much more profitable for the
professionals. Now the discussion is largely redundant as the professionals
have seen almost every question and objections many times before. That is
probably one major reason why so few 1st rate scholars ever participate in
internet discussions. They probably think it is a waste of time because it
does not contribute to any advance of scholarship but mostly refers to
discussion that have been coming up several times during the last 200 years.
And when, say a German scholar of the very late 20th century is confronted
with arguments that can be related to the position of Henstenberg in the
middle of the 19th century, why should this modern scholar think it worth
while joining such a discussion? That is the reason why I continuously ask
people to become informed about the status quo of the scholarly discussion
as seen from many sides of the scholarly community.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ken Litwak [SMTP:kdlitwak at concentric.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, 30 December, 1999 09:13
> To:	Niels Peter Lemche
> Cc:	Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:	Re: historiography
> Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
> > 
> > > Because in this area as in others we follow analogy. We have methods
> of
> > > dealign with other texts which tell us that the date of an extant
> fragment
> > > is not the date of the document. You have to give a reason as to why
> the
> > > dating of the Biblical text is not to be approached in the same way as
> the
> > > dating of Plato and Aristotle.
> > >
> > >
> > > moshe shulman mshulman at NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> > >
> >         [Niels Peter Lemche]  I have already answered that question:
> read
> > the scholarly literature from the last 200 years. Ot at least some
> qualified
> > introduction to OT studies. It is available, and I gave an excellent
> title
> > for people with a conservative outlook. But also for people on my line.
> While this is certainly of relevance, I can find lots of different works
> with lots of different conclusions regarding the dating of biblical
> texts.  R.K. Harrison and O. Eissfeldt readh very different
> conclusions.  It's not acceptable to dismiss one of thoe two by claiming
> that one is a real scholar and the other is not.  So it is not enough to
> state that the last 200 years of scholarship have answered all the
> questions.  Whar's more, over time some of he fundamental conclusions
> are rejected.  100 years from now, 19th century German biblical
> scholarhsip , e.g., Welhausen, may seem about as reasonable as the Law
> of Spontaneous Generation of matter.  
> Ken Litwak

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list